[dhcwg] AD review of Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for I Pv6 (DHCPv6) draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis-06

Dear authors, shepherd, and DHC WG,

Thank you for your efforts to elevate DHCPv6 to Internet Standard.

As usual for any IETF draft, I have done an AD review. Before proceeding with the publication process, I am requesting either a revised text or a reply to all points below.

Of course, I did the review on the diff and not on the base document, I am expecting that the IETF Last Call and the IESG evaluation will also be executed on the diffs. Please note that this is my first AD shepherding to an Internet Standard, so, feel free to educate me on wrong questions.

Regards,

-éric

# Metadata

Should the intended status clearly indicate “Internet Standard” ? Tbh I am not sure as draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis also indicated “Standards Track”.

# Generic

Should this document use “DHCP” or “DHCPv6” when referring to the protocol it specifies ? No hard feelings here but I would prefer to use “DHCP” everywhere (with perhaps a sentence about “In this document, DHCP is used to refer to the protocol specified in this document”.

Suggest using the aasvg tool to generate a nicer version of this long-lasting document... Trust me, this tool is impressive ;-) but this is a matter of taste. No need to reply to this comment.

# Abstract

s/This document replaces RFC8415/This document obsoletes RFC8415/ (as also written at the end of section 1.1)

# Section 1.1

Do the DHC WG have any information whether the features in  `obsoleting two features that have not been widely implemented` are deployed and used ?

# Section 4.2

`At the time of writing` does not age very well, suggest using “At the time of writing (2024)” or something less vague. This issue occurs several times in the document.

More important ` One other IA type was defined (see [RFC8947<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8947>])` please add this type to the previous enumeration and remove this sentence.

Should IA_LL options be listed in “IA option(s)” ? I guess yes.

s/ See [RFC8415] for details on the now obsoleted IA_TA option./ This option is obsolete, see [RFC8415] for details./

Should IA_LL (RFC 8947) be also listed in the terminology ?

# Section 6.3

What is ‘normal DHCP’ in ` That includes addressed leased out by normal DHCPv6 (IA_NA), prefixes via DHCPv6-PD (IA_PD), and addresses autoconfigured by IPv6 Router Advertisements.` ?

# Section 7.2

What is “designated destination port” in their designated destination ports`?
# Section 14.2

There are now only “two” use cases and not ` there are three such cases:` ;-) (perhaps worth checking whether there are other occurrences of this mistake)

# Section 18.4

Suggest using upper case BCP14 terms in this section for “may continue”

# Section 21.5

Many of my fellow ADs will not be happy with “SHOULD” without any specific use case or consequences of bypassing the SHOULD.

# Section 21.12

As in section 21.5, strict normative BCP14 text should appear on when to send and what to do on receiving unicast traffic.

# Section 22

Thanks for this detailed summary ;-)

# Errata

I have indeed verified that all errata (only 3 of them – a good sign of RFC 8415 quality) were processed or are no more relevant as IA_TA is obsoleted, thank you.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]